THE DEMISE OF SUNSPOTS—DEEP COOLING AHEAD?
Don J. Easterbrook, Professor of Geology, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA
The three studies released by NSO’s Solar Synoptic Network this week, predicting the virtual vanishing of sunspots for the next several decades and the possibility of a solar minimum similar to the Maunder Minimum, came as stunning news. According to Frank Hill,
“the fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation.”
The last time sunspots vanished from the sun for decades was during the Maunder Minimum from 1645 to 1700 AD was marked by drastic cooling of the climate and the maximum cold of the Little Ice Age.
What happened the last time sunspots disappeared?
Abundant physical evidence from the geologic past provides a record of former periods of global cooling. Geologic records provide clear evidence of past global cooling so we can use them to project global climate into the future—the past is the key to the future. So what can we learn from past sunspot history and climate change?
Galileo’s perfection of the telescope in 1609 allowed scientists to see sunspots for the first time. From 1610 A.D. to 1645 A.D., very few sunspots were seen, despite the fact that many scientists with telescopes were looking for them, and from 1645 to 1700 AD sunspots virtually disappeared from the sun (Fig. 1). During this interval of greatly reduced sunspot activity, known as the Maunder Minimum, global climates turned bitterly cold (the Little Ice Age), demonstrating a clear correspondence between sunspots and cool climate. After 1700 A.D., the number of observed sunspots increased sharply from nearly zero to more than 50 (Fig. 1) and the global climate warmed.
The Maunder Minimum was not the beginning of The Little Ice Age—it actually began about 1300 AD—but it marked perhaps the bitterest part of the cooling. Temperatures dropped ~4º C (~7 º F) in ~20 years in mid-to high latitudes. The colder climate that ensued for several centuries was devastating. The population of Europe had become dependent on cereal grains as their main food supply during the Medieval Warm Period and when the colder climate, early snows, violent storms, and recurrent flooding swept Europe, massive crop failures occurred. Winters in Europe were bitterly cold, and summers were rainy and too cool for growing cereal crops, resulting in widespread famine and disease. About a third of the population of Europe perished.
Glaciers all over the world advanced and pack ice extended southward in the North Atlantic. Glaciers in the Alps advanced and overran farms and buried entire villages. The Thames River and canals and rivers of the Netherlands frequently froze over during the winter. New York Harbor froze in the winter of 1780 and people could walk from Manhattan to Staten Island. Sea ice surrounding Iceland extended for miles in every direction, closing many harbors. The population of Iceland decreased by half and the Viking colonies in Greenland died out in the 1400s because they could no longer grow enough food there. In parts of China, warm weather crops that had been grown for centuries were abandoned. In North America, early European settlers experienced exceptionally severe winters.
So what can we learn from the Maunder? Perhaps most important is that the Earth’s climate is related to sunspots. The cause of this relationship is not understood, but it definitely exists. The second thing is that cooling of the climate during sunspot minima imposes great suffering on humans—global cooling is much more damaging than global warming.
Global cooling during other sunspot minima
The global cooling that occurred during the Maunder Minimum was neither the first nor the only such event. The Maunder was preceded by the Sporer Minimum (~1410–1540 A.D.) and the Wolf Minimum (~1290–1320 A.D.) and succeeded by the Dalton Minimum (1790–1830), the unnamed 1880–1915 minima, and the unnamed 1945–1977 Minima (Fig. 2). Each of these periods is characterized by low numbers of sunspots, cooler global climates, and changes in the rate of production of 14C and 10Be in the upper atmosphere. As shown in Fig. 2, each minimum was a time of global cooling, recorded in the advance of alpine glaciers.
The same relationship between sunspots and temperature is also seen between sunspot numbers and temperatures in Greenland and Antarctica (Fig. 3). Each of the four minima in sunspot numbers seen in Fig. 3 also occurs in Fig. 2. All of them correspond to advances of alpine glaciers during each of the cool periods.
Figure 4 shows the same pattern between solar variation and temperature. Temperatures were cooler during each solar minima.
What can we learn from this historic data? Clearly, a strong correlation exists between solar variation and temperature. Although this correlation is too robust to be merely coincidental, exactly how solar variation are translated into climatic changes on Earth is not clear. For many years, solar scientists considered variation in solar irradiance to be too small to cause significant climate changes. However, Svensmark (Svensmark and Calder, 2007; Svensmark and Friis-Christensen, 1997; Svensmark et al., 2007) has proposed a new concept of how the sun may impact Earth’s climate. Svensmark recognized the importance of cloud generation as a result of ionization in the atmosphere caused by cosmic rays. Clouds reflect incoming sunlight and tend to cool the Earth. The amount of cosmic radiation is greatly affected by the sun’s magnetic field, so during times of weak solar magnetic field, more cosmic radiation reaches the Earth. Thus, perhaps variation in the intensity of the solar magnetic field may play an important role in climate change.
Are we headed for another Little Ice Age?
In 1999, the year after the high temperatures of the 1998 El Nino, I became convinced that geologic data of recurring climatic cycles (ice core isotopes, glacial advances and retreats, and sun spot minima) showed conclusively that we were headed for several decades of global cooling and presented a paper to that effect (Fig. 5). The evidence for this conclusion was presented in a series of papers from 2000 to 2011 (The data are available in several GSA papers, my website, a 2010 paper, and in a paper scheduled to be published in Sept 2011). The evidence consisted of temperature data from isotope analyses in the Greenland ice cores, the past history of the PDO, alpine glacial fluctuations, and the abrupt Pacific SST flips from cool to warm in 1977 and from warm to cool in 1999. Projection of the PDO to 2040 forms an important part of this cooling prediction.
Figure 5. Projected temperature changes to 2040 AD. Three possible scenarios are shown: (1) cooling similar to the 1945-1977 cooling, cooling similar to the 1880-1915 cooling, and cooling similar to the Dalton Minimum (1790-1820). Cooling similar to the Maunder Minimum would be an extension of the Dalton curve off the graph.
So far, my cooling prediction seems to be coming to pass, with no global warming above the 1998 temperatures and a gradually deepening cooling since then. However, until now, I have suggested that it was too early to tell which of these possible cooling scenarios were most likely. If we are indeed headed toward a disappearance of sunspots similar to the Maunder Minimum during the Little Ice Age then perhaps my most dire prediction may come to pass. As I have said many times over the past 10 years, time will tell whether my prediction is correct or not. The announcement that sun spots may disappear totally for several decades is very disturbing because it could mean that we are headed for another Little Ice Age during a time when world population is predicted to increase by 50% with sharply increasing demands for energy, food production, and other human needs. Hardest hit will be poor countries that already have low food production, but everyone would feel the effect of such cooling. The clock is ticking. Time will tell!
References
D’Aleo, J., Easterbrook, D.J., 2010. Multidecadal tendencies in Enso and global temperatures related to multidecadal oscillations: Energy & Environment, vol. 21 (5), p. 436–460.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2000, Cyclical oscillations of Mt. Baker glaciers in response to climatic changes and their correlation with periodic oceanographic changes in the Northeast Pacific Ocean: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 32, p.17.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2001, The next 25 years; global warming or global cooling? Geologic and oceanographic evidence for cyclical climatic oscillations: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 33, p.253.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2005, Causes and effects of late Pleistocene, abrupt, global, climate changes and global warming: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 37, p.41.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2006, Causes of abrupt global climate changes and global warming; predictions for the coming century: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 38, p. 77.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2006, The cause of global warming and predictions for the coming century: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 38, p.235-236.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2007, Geologic evidence of recurring climate cycles and their implications for the cause of global warming and climate changes in the coming century: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, vol. 39, p. 507.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2007, Late Pleistocene and Holocene glacial fluctuations; implications for the cause of abrupt global climate changes: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 39, p.594
Easterbrook, D.J., 2007, Younger Dryas to Little Ice Age glacier fluctuations in the Fraser Lowland and on Mt. Baker, Washington: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 39, p.11.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2007, Historic Mt. Baker glacier fluctuations—geologic evidence of the cause of global warming: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 39, p. 13.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2008, Solar influence on recurring global, decadal, climate cycles recorded by glacial fluctuations, ice cores, sea surface temperatures, and historic measurements over the past millennium: Abstracts of American Geophysical Union Annual Meeting, San Francisco.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2008, Implications of glacial fluctuations, PDO, NAO, and sun spot cycles for global climate in the coming decades: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 40, p. 428.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2008, Correlation of climatic and solar variations over the past 500 years and predicting global climate changes from recurring climate cycles: Abstracts of 33rd International Geological Congress, Oslo, Norway.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2009, The role of the oceans and the Sun in late Pleistocene and historic glacial and climatic fluctuations: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 41, p. 33.
Eddy, J.A., 1976, The Maunder Minimum: Science, vol. 192, p. 1189–1202.
Hoyt, D.V. and Schatten, K.H., 1997, The Role of the sun in climate change: Oxford University, 279 p.
Svensmark, H. and Calder, N., 2007, The chilling stars: A new theory of climate change: Icon Books, Allen and Unwin Pty Ltd, 246 p.
Svensmark, H. and Friis-Christensen, E., 1997, Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverda missing link in solar–climate relationships: Journal of Atmospheric and SolareTerrestrial Physics, vol. 59, p. 1125–1132.
Svensmark, H., Pedersen, J.O., Marsh, N.D., Enghoff, M.B., and Uggerhøj, U.I., 2007, Experimental evidence for the role of ions in particle nucleation under atmospheric conditions: Proceedings of the Royal Society, vol. 463, p. 385–396.
Usoskin, I.G., Mursula, K., Solanki, S.K., Schussler, M., and Alanko, K., 2004, Reconstruction of solar activity for the last millenium using 10Be data: Astronomy and Astrophysics, vol. 413, p. 745–751.
=================================================================
UPDATE: Bob Tisdale has posted a rebuttal. Here is what he has to say via email.
Hi Anthony: The following is a link to my notes on the Easterbrook post:
We should have progressed beyond using outdated TSI datasets, misrepresenting the PDO, and creating bogus global temperature graphs in our arguments against AGW.
I’ve advised Easterbrook, and we’ll see what he has to say – Anthony
Smokey says:
June 17, 2011 at 11:23 am
I agree with Gates that CO2 has risen by ≈40% over the past century and a half. But that rise doesn’t show what Gates thinks it does. What it clearly shows is that CO2 has little if any effect on global temperature.
===============================================================
But it’s so scary when you say increased 40%…….
……40% of nothing is still nothing…………………………0.039%
Murray says:
June 17, 2011 at 10:59 am
Tisdale’s caveats seem more like nitpicking than contributing.
Not so. Most of the data used to produce the graphs in the post is either suspect or, at best, outdated.
steven mosher says:
June 17, 2011 at 11:14 am
The IPCC projection in the last chart is also dubious, also tagging it to 1998 is just plan wrong.
The outdated and INCONSISTENT TSI figures and the dubious last chart… I’d consign this post to the trash bin
You beat me to it. The post is an embarrassment.
Moderate Republican says:
June 17, 2011 at 11:26 am
First you complain that since the CIA aren’t climate experts, there opinion doesn’t count.
Now you say that since the report doesn’t list the experts that it talked to, it’s opinion doesn’t count.
Why do I suspect that nomatter how far we go down this rabbit hole, you will always find one more irrelevant reason to dismiss the report.
Hi Tom – I am not saying it is a myth that the media talked a lot about it, but it appears that is it a myth that the body of scientific work at the time was focused on global cooling.
So it’s a myth that Hansen gave testimony in front of congress talking about the coming ice age? (Yes, the same Dr. Hansen that is now claiming the earth is about to boil away.)
Except of course for the fact the we have the lowest arctic sea ice extent ever for this date in June.
40% CO2 may or may not be a scare tactic.
But this definitely is. Especially when you fail to mention that “ever” only includes the period since 1979.
It’s doubly a scare tactic when you fail to mention that the period included since 1979 only includes the warm phase of a single PDO cycle. Let’s wait at least until we finish a single full PDO cycle before we start declaring we know anything about sea ice extants.
Murray says: “Tisdale’s caveats seem more like nitpicking than contributing. They do nothing to Easterbrook’s main point about solar cycles and climate.”
Easterbrook’s main point about solar cycles and global temperature is also flawed. If you’re not aware of it, the TSI reconstruction data he used in Figure 4 is obsolete. The Hoyt and Schatten TSI dataset was created to reinforce the AGW proposition that global temperatures were governed by variations in TSI until the 1970s, and that after that, AGW caused global temperatures to rise. Somehow Easterbrook is now attempting to use that reconstruction to reinforce natural variability. Also, please let me know what global temperature reconstruction he presented in Figure 4. It’s not identified in the post. I could find no mention of a source in the references he provided. Without a source, it’s simply unjustified wiggles on a graph.
You continued, “PDO peak in 2004 instead of 1999 – right, but so what, the cooling after 1908 equal 0.3 degrees rather than 0.5 degrees, right…”
I did not write that the PDO peaked in 2004 instead of 1999. I provided graphs of the SST anomalies of the North Pacific, not the PDO. The PDO does not represent the SST of the North Pacific. In fact, on a decadal basis, the PDO is inversely related to detrended North Pacific SST anomalies. That means, again over decadal time spans, if the PDO is rising, the detrended North Pacific SST anomalies are falling, lowering the impact of the North Pacific on global temperatures.
You continued, “but so what ,we are still slipping into a cooling.”
We are? Please identify which global surface temperature anomaly dataset you’re referring to.
phlogiston
May I say I find your comment very enlightening and satisfying indeed. While we must fight today’s AGW nonsense every step of the way this planet has a story to tell few of us even consider with due diligence. I am far from satisfied with us as a species knowing full well the volatile history of this planet and the fact of how little we understand or even allow into the conversation why and how ice ages and the inner-spaced warm periods triggered. If we don’t understand the historical facts how can we possible understand the present? This has confused me my entire life to this point in time. I am grateful to WUWT for allowing me to read some of the most informed people on this planet.
Caleb says @ur momisugly June 17, 2011 at 11:37 am “Go to the comparison between 2007 and 2011. Look at the ice north of Siberia.”
Wouldn’t the long term trend be the better measurement, since there can be substantial year to year variation? Ditto for looking at just one point or region?
Just seems like picking any year on year comparison or one geo location leaves open (which I am not saying you are doing) cherry picking of the data by either side of the debate.
Jim Arndt says:
June 17, 2011 at 8:05 am
My main problem is that he is using a TSI reconstruction that is way out of date and most agree now that TSI does not vary that much.
Indeed, the TSI constructions are obsolete. The old reconstructions all relied on a sharp increase in TSI during the first 3/4 of the 20th century. This increase did not happen. There are sevearl lines of evidence for that. Here is from a very recent analysis of the solar ‘network’ since 1915 [Peter Foukal, ApJ, 733:L38 (4pp), 2011 June 1]:
“Solar activity minima between 1914 and 1996 exhibit no significant secular increase in f (Foukal & Milano 2001). This argues against a secular increase of TSI due to increasing network area during the 20th century, as proposed in addition to 11 year TSI modulation by Lean et al. (1995) and by Lockwood & Stamper (1999). This finding from archival solar images is supported by the subsequent reconsideration of such additional secular solar brightening over the past century (Lean et al. 2002; see also Svalgaard & Cliver 2010).”
With this realization the rest of the article falls apart.
Smokey says:
June 17, 2011 at 11:02 am
Gates says:
“Except of course for the fact the we have the lowest arctic sea ice extent ever for this date in June.”
“lowest… ever”?? What a preposterous statement. No credibility there.
_____
And you can provide solid specific data (rather than conjecture) of when it’s been lower in recorded history? Please show me that data. I’d love to see it.
R.Games
40% of next to nothing is still next to nothing.
Instead why don’t you say there is 0.01% more CO2 than there was during the last grand minimum? That’s a perfectly accurate thing to say.
Don’t be coy. We all know why you prefer the former. It sounds like such a much larger number.
Murray says:
June 17, 2011 at 11:00 am
Smokey – low sea ice extent because the wind pattern has been compacting the ice, not because it is warm.
_____
Murray you are complete mistaken about this. That “wind compacting the ice” happens…but is not the reason the sea ice has been declining over the past few decades. Permafrost is also melting, and it’s a bit hard for the wind to get underground to do that. The arctic is warming Murray…all the data tell us that, and to believe different is to believe something that is in error.
Stephen Wilde says:
June 17, 2011 at 6:04 am
“How does Svensmark move from the simple assertion that cloudiness increases when the sun is quiet to the observed changes in surface pressure distribution and changes in jetstream behaviour ?”
“His concept is curiously incomplete in my humble opinion.”
The jetstream is the main source of convection and clouds on the planet away from the tropics. The planet is narrow at the poles and wide at the equator, so the position of jetstream to the north or South covers different areas of the surface. The further North the jet stream position the less area of the planet it covers. Therefore just positioning the jetstream further South increases cloud albedo because it covers a greater surface of the planet.
Smokey says:
June 17, 2011 at 11:02 am
Gates says:
“Except of course for the fact the we have the lowest arctic sea ice extent ever for this date in June.”
“lowest… ever”?? What a preposterous statement. No credibility there.
I still find the worry about the lowest Arctic sea ice extent since x really funny.
1) It is only a data span of ~32 years.
2) If it was a weather staton these records would be broken regularly in a period of just ~32 years.
3) The lowest extent only comes up when the volume isn’t.
4) The lowest volume only comes up when the extent isn’t.
5) Any extent between September and March not including them, has little bearing on the start and end.
6) The September extent has little bearing on the extent after the following Winter.
7) There is scientific evidence of ice-free Arctic periods before and much warmer times.
8) A ice-free Arctic during Summer would be very short and refreeze quicker with more open water exposed to a rapid solar energy loss. (more heat loss from ocean)
9)It is a serious clutching at straws that an ice-free Arctic over a very short period during Summer would even be a problem. (only thing anyone concerned can think of is the polar bears, they can survive for months without food and swim hundreds of miles.)
10)The Ice would still refreeze to a great area by the end of Winter. (the rapid solar energy lost is too great)
The Arctic ice from just ~32 years has nothing to do with this incomparable period over 400 years. (topic of this thread)
Regarding Figure 5, he presents it as his 1999 idea of what would happen. It seems to have been wrong in the first ten years after that. This explains why it doesn’t show that the 2000’s were not warmer than the 90’s. I don’t know where the red IPCC line would come from. No IPCC line should have wiggles in the future. I think it is hand-drawn because some gradients look implausibly steep.
Considering Arctic temperatures are following right along the normal line, it’s hard to say why there is as much melting as there is, as temp isn’t increasing over previous years. http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2011.png
Also, the Antarctic is riding just above average again. So, whatever’s going on in the Arctic seems confined to there.
steven mosher says:
June 17, 2011 at 11:14 am
Whilst I can only assume that your reference to differing TSI values is supposed to be important – I can’t see that it’s relevant. I took the point of the graphs to be ‘graphical’ representations of the shapes and their correlation but maybe I’m not looking hard enough?
I do agree that Fig 5 seems to be a hocus pocus mix-up – but presumably, as an illustrative graph it does have some (limited) merit.
Speaking of solar variation vs variations on earth: Just today I noticed that stratospheric cooling actually happened in two steps after El Chichon and Pinatubo (this has of course been noticed before, but alarmists prefer to talk about a downward trend and give CO2 the blame). The reason is that the volcanoes depleted the stratosphere of ozone, so after an initial fast warming, the stratosphere cooled to a level a step below the level before the eruption. Could it be that the stratospheric cooling caused tropospheric warming, and not vice versa? I.e. that big eruptions actually warm the earth in the long run? Of course, if UV and its absorption
In the stratosphere is more crucial than previously thought, that may also mean that UV variations in sunlight may be driving climate changes as well.
Hi Mark – thanks for the response.
I think you are a touch confused here.
Mark Wilson says @ur momisugly June 17, 2011 at 10:42 am “What the report does say is that the CIA talked to the people who are experts, and here’s what they had to say.”
and then said;
Mark Wilson says @ur momisugly June 17, 2011 at 12:04 pm “First you complain that since the CIA aren’t climate experts, there opinion doesn’t count. Now you say that since the report doesn’t list the experts that it talked to, it’s opinion doesn’t count.”
I’m just responding to your assertion that it is revelant, so I’m responding to you. I’m just looking to learn from the report since you say it is relevant to the broader conversation here then I am assuming it is.
I haven’t seen the report since it isn’t cited, but expressing concerns that the CIA is generally not considered to be a primary source of climate expertise would seem to be a valid expression. Without seeing any evidence of where the supposed conclusion that the CIA reached was drawn from in the report harboring some skepticism (and skepticism is cool here, yes) would seem to be consistent, no?
Anyway, thanks for the response.
Dave Springer says:
June 17, 2011 at 12:48 pm
R.Games
40% of next to nothing is still next to nothing.
Instead why don’t you say there is 0.01% more CO2 than there was during the last grand minimum? That’s a perfectly accurate thing to say.
______
Saying there is .01% more CO2 (as you suggest) now than during the last Grand Minimum would be completely wrong. Why would I want to say that? Not sure what data you’re using but it’s not accepted by…pretty much anyone, wherever it came from. We’ve got the highest CO2 levels in at least 800,000 years, and 40% more than we had during the last “Little Ice Age”. Now those two statements are accurate.
Leif: Glad you made an appearance. In my critique of this post at my blog I wrote, Don Easterbrook’s Figure 5 shows global temperatures dropping in the future. Why would they drop? We’re pretty close to solar minimum now. Is TSI expected to drop below the minimums of the last few solar cycles? I’ve never seen this discussed in any paper presented about the current solar minimum. Therefore, where do these expectations of decreased TSI come from?
My question for you, Leif: are we expecting TSI to drop below its “normal” cycle minimum during the upcoming cycles?
I also want to know where he gets his 4 C cooler LIA from. This is the first time I have seen a figure for the LIA of this size, and it is probably a typo for 0.4 C. Most paleo proxies have been putting it at 0.5 C below average at most.
Ged says:
June 17, 2011 at 1:04 pm
Considering Arctic temperatures are following right along the normal line, it’s hard to say why there is as much melting as there is,
_____
Not hard at all…the Arctic is, and has been for some time, warming even faster than the rest of the planet. This has affected everything from sea ice to permafrost. If you can try to disentangle your mind from your political beliefs, you might actually find the truth is quite enlightening.
See: http://www.adn.com/2011/06/16/1921104/arctic-ice-melting-faster-than.html
“The population of Europe had become dependent on cereal grains as their main food supply during the Medieval Warm Period and when the colder climate, early snows, violent storms, and recurrent flooding swept Europe, massive crop failures occurred.”
Some AGW proponent may suggest that all these event were compatible with a “Global Warming Scenario”. In fact since then the Earth has been warming. Thank God.
R Gates says:
“And you can provide solid specific data (rather than conjecture) of when it’s been lower in recorded history? Please show me that data. I’d love to see it.”
Read the first paragraph [in red]: click The whole article is worthwhile.
The conclusion is worth reading, too. Gates will dismiss it because his mind is made up, but John Daly knew what he was talking about. Which is why Phil Jones practically stood up and cheered at the news of Daly’s passing.